Minimum

FAQ

Q: What is the playable frame rate threshold for Minimum, and how does this combo perform?

A: The playable threshold is 60 FPS. This system clears that mark at every resolution tested: 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160, though the highest settings at 4K fall below the threshold.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 2560x1440?

A: The database shows Ultra settings at 2560x1440 deliver an average of 83.4 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra is the most demanding preset that remains playable at this resolution.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-10400F compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6756E, scores 14163 (0.2% lower), while the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232 (0.3% higher). The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277 (0.6% higher).

Q: What GPU benchmark scores does the RTX 3080 post, and how close are its rivals?

A: The RTX 3080 has an average benchmark score of 23172, with a Passmark G3D score of 25086 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 152423. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA P106-100, scores 23249 (0.3% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 scores 23250 (0.3% higher). The AMD Radeon RX 6600M scores 23273 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X scores 23276 (0.4% higher).

Q: What is the combo rank for this CPU and GPU pairing in Minimum?

A: The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 ranks 1075 out of 3712 tested combos in the database for this game.

Q: Which resolutions allow Ultra settings at or above 60 FPS?

A: Ultra settings are playable at 1920x1080 with an average of 129.4 FPS and at 2560x1440 with an average of 83.4 FPS. At 3840x2160, Ultra drops to an average of 45.3 FPS, which is below the playable threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data for Minimum shows a clear pattern in how the CPU and GPU share responsibility across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 267.5 FPS on Low settings, which is an extremely high frame rate that indicates the CPU is well ahead of the workload at lower graphical demands. Moving to Medium at the same resolution, the average drops to 205.5 FPS, a reduction of 62 FPS, while High produces 168.8 FPS and Ultra produces 129.4 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1080p represents a drop of 138.1 FPS, roughly 51.6% of the Low setting value. This steep decline with increasing preset quality points to the GPU becoming a larger limiting factor as graphical load rises, but even at Ultra the frame rate remains far above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the same trend continues with more pronounced GPU influence. Low settings yield 172.9 FPS, Medium drops to 131.1 FPS, High produces 110.3 FPS, and Ultra falls to 83.4 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 89.5 FPS, a reduction of about 51.8% from the Low value. Compared to 1080p, each preset loses a significant portion of its frame rate: Low goes from 267.5 to 172.9 FPS, a 94.6 FPS drop; Medium goes from 205.5 to 131.1 FPS, a 74.4 FPS drop; High goes from 168.8 to 110.3 FPS, a 58.5 FPS drop; and Ultra goes from 129.4 to 83.4 FPS, a 46 FPS drop. The absolute losses shrink as settings increase, which indicates that at higher presets the GPU is already near its ceiling and resolution scaling has less headroom to remove.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the dominant constraint. Low settings average 94.5 FPS, Medium averages 70.3 FPS, High averages 60.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 45.3 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K is substantial: Low loses 78.4 FPS, Medium loses 60.8 FPS, High loses 49.4 FPS, and Ultra loses 38.1 FPS. Notably, the gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 49.2 FPS, which is smaller in absolute terms than at lower resolutions but still represents a 52% reduction from the Low value. The fact that even Low settings at 4K only reach 94.5 FPS, compared to 267.5 FPS at 1080p Low, shows that pixel count alone has a massive impact on this GPU's output.

The role of the CPU becomes clearer when comparing Low settings across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 267.5 FPS, which is likely near the CPU's practical limit for this game. At 1440p Low, the frame rate drops to 172.9 FPS, and at 4K Low it drops to 94.5 FPS. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, these values would remain closer together, as resolution increases primarily affect GPU pixel throughput. The recorded data shows the GPU is the limiting factor at 1440p and 4K, while at 1080p the CPU may still have headroom but the GPU is already delivering very high frame rates. For Ultra settings, the GPU is unambiguously the bottleneck at all resolutions, as the frame rate scales inversely with pixel count.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 129.4 FPS. This is well above the playable threshold, and the system has considerable headroom even at maximum settings. The database lists all four presets, Low, Medium, High, and Ultra, as playable at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Ultra remains the best playable preset, averaging 83.4 FPS. This is still comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold, with 23.4 FPS of headroom. All four presets are playable here as well, but Ultra is the most demanding option that clears the bar.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes. The best settings preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is High, with an average of 60.9 FPS. This is just barely above the threshold, leaving only 0.9 FPS of margin. Medium averages 70.3 FPS and Low averages 94.5 FPS, both of which are also playable, but High is the most demanding preset that qualifies. Ultra at 4K averages 45.3 FPS, which falls short of the playable threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the Intel Core i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185. The nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Xeon 6756E with a score of 14163, which is 0.2% lower; the Intel Core 7 160UL with a score of 14232, which is 0.3% higher; the AMD EPYC 7552 with a score of 14115, which is 0.5% lower; and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C with a score of 14277, which is 0.6% higher. These differences are all within 1% of the i5-10400F, meaning any of these processors would produce nearly identical CPU-bound performance in Minimum. The Xeon 6756E and EPYC 7552 are server-class parts, while the Core 7 160UL and Ryzen 3 7320C are lower-power designs, but their average benchmark scores place them in the same performance tier for this workload.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 has an average benchmark score of 23172. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA P106-100 with a score of 23249 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 with a score of 23250 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6600M with a score of 23273 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X with a score of 23276 (0.4% higher). All of these alternatives are within 0.4% of the RTX 3080 in average score, so they would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Minimum at any given resolution and preset. This is an unusual grouping, as the P106-100 is a mining-oriented card and the R9 M290X is an older mobile part, but the recorded scores place them in the same performance band.

When considering a system build, pairing the i5-10400F with any of its rival CPUs and the RTX 3080 with any of its rival GPUs would produce very similar results in Minimum. The frame rate differences would be imperceptible, as the score deltas are all under 1%. The bottleneck characteristics described above would also remain unchanged, since the relative performance of both components is nearly identical to the tested pair.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 can run Minimum, and the database confirms playable performance at all three tested resolutions. At 1920x1080, every preset from Low to Ultra clears the 60 FPS threshold, with the lowest playable average being Ultra at 129.4 FPS. At 2560x1440, all presets also remain above 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 83.4 FPS. At 3840x2160, the system can run Low, Medium, and High settings above the threshold, with High averaging 60.9 FPS.

The verdict by resolution is clear: 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 both allow Ultra settings, while 3840x2160 is limited to High as the best playable preset. At 4K Ultra, the average of 45.3 FPS falls below the playable threshold, so users who want maximum visual quality at that resolution would need to reduce settings to High. The 60.9 FPS at 4K High is essentially at the threshold, so any additional background load or scene complexity could push it below 60 FPS in practice. At 1440p and below, the system has generous headroom, with 1440p Ultra providing 83.4 FPS and 1080p Ultra providing 129.4 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this pairing of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 ranks 1075 out of 3712 combos for Minimum. This places it in the upper third of tested systems, specifically around the 71st percentile of all recorded combinations. The ranking reflects the balance between the CPU and GPU, where the RTX 3080 provides strong rasterization performance for a 2014-era third-person shooter, while the i5-10400F offers enough single-thread and multi-thread throughput to avoid holding the GPU back at most settings and resolutions.

Given that the game is from 2014, the high frame rates recorded across all presets are expected. The combo rank of 1075 out of 3712 suggests there are many systems that perform better, likely with newer CPUs or higher-tier GPUs, but this pairing still delivers a smooth experience at every resolution except 4K Ultra. The rank also indicates that the RTX 3080 is the stronger contributor to this result, as its 68th percentile among all GPUs matches the CPU's 68th percentile among all CPUs, but the GPU's absolute performance in this game is what pushes frame rates into the triple digits at 1080p and 1440p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded averages are as follows: Low settings produce 267.5 FPS, Medium produces 205.5 FPS, High produces 168.8 FPS, and Ultra produces 129.4 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra is consistent, with each step down in settings recovering roughly 30 to 60 FPS. The largest single jump is from Medium to Low, which recovers 62 FPS, while the jump from Ultra to High recovers 39.4 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 172.9 FPS, Medium at 131.1 FPS, High at 110.3 FPS, and Ultra at 83.4 FPS. The pattern is similar to 1080p, but the absolute values are lower across every preset. The difference between Low and Medium is 41.8 FPS, between Medium and High is 20.8 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 26.9 FPS. The smallest gap is between Medium and High, suggesting diminishing returns from those preset steps at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 94.5 FPS, Medium at 70.3 FPS, High at 60.9 FPS, and Ultra at 45.3 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 24.2 FPS, between Medium and High is 9.4 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 15.6 FPS. The High preset at 4K is the only setting across all resolutions and presets that sits within 1 FPS of the 60 FPS threshold, making it the most marginal playable configuration in the dataset. The Ultra preset at 4K is the only non-playable configuration, falling 14.7 FPS short of the threshold. No min or max FPS values were recorded for any configuration, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates.